Articles Posted inNeurological Malpractice

The case before the court is an action for malpractice. This case is being heard by the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case retained the defendant attorney to represent her during her divorce proceeding against her now ex-husband. The matrimonial action was settled towards the end of 2003 with the judgment of divorce being entered on the 27th of February, 2004. The defendant states that the judgment of divorce ended the matrimonial action and her representation of the plaintiff in the matrimonial action.

Case Background

In October of 2006, the plaintiff’s ex-husband passed away. In April of 2007, the plaintiff was named as a defendant in an insurance action that took place in the New York County Supreme Court. The insurance action was started by the executor of her ex-husband’s estate. The insurance company was named as a co-defendant in the case. The defendant of this case asserts that all causes of action in the insurance action were in regard to the changes of beneficiary designation on the life insurance policy made by the plaintiff’s ex-husband.

An action to recover damages for medical malpractice was filed. The defendant was found by the court, on the issue of liability, to be 75% at fault and the plaintiff 25% at fault in the causation of the plaintiff’s injuries; and, on the issue of damages, that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sums of $150,000 for past mental distress, $50,000 for future mental distress, and $134,000 for loss of past financial support, and awarded the plaintiff the sum of $166,000 in punitive damages.

Defendant then appeals from the aforesaid decision and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial or, in the alternative, to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $416,500, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.

The University of Miami has been trying to protect its doctors from malpractice suits for years. They finally managed to do this explained a well-known Medical MalpracticeLawyer. Florida lawmakers have agreed to extend the lawsuit protection to university doctors when they are working in a public hospital.

It’s suspected that the bill will become law. The state protects all hospital employees who are employed by the government from any major malpractice judgment. However, University of Miami school doctors who teach are not protected in the same way.

University of Miami officials have been trying to get the same benefits for their employees for over two decades. The university argues that many patients will sue the university instead of the hospital because the university is less familiar with these cases and more likely to pay out.

A bill in North Carolina’s Senate may send shockwaves throughout the medical community in the state, believes a doctor. The bill, which would limit all Medical Malpractice verdicts to $250,000 for non-economical damages, has some strong supporters and some equally strong opposition. A non-economical damage is described as pain, suffering or emotional distress. Neurological cases can also be considered in this context.

The bills co-sponsor stated that the proposal aims to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. Defensive medicine supposedly adds 20 to 25 percent to the cost of health care. He also states that the main goal of the bill is to keep medical professionals in North Carolina and to make sure that citizens can still receive quality healthcare, stated a source.

Critics of the bill range from patient advocates to trial lawyers. North Carolina Coalition for Patient Safety’s executive director disagreed with the bills co-sponsor, saying it wouldn’t really do anything to bring down medical costs, or to keep them from rising in the future. She went on to say that the government doesn’t seem to focus on the cause of the rising medical costs, but merely want to focus on the symptoms. In The Bronx and Brooklyn, doctors are taking note in the hopes that this kind of legislation does not come north.